Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, (2013) 4 SCC 404
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. I or Pt. II or Or. 23 R. 1 - Applicability of - Determination of - Requirement of in writing and signed by
parties" in Or. 23 R. 3 - When applicable - Two parts of Or. 23 R. 3, differentiated: (1) Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. I: When there is a
lawful agreement/compromise in writing, or (2) Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II: When there is satisfaction of plaintiff by defendant
wholly or partly in respect of subject-matter of suit - Power of court to adjudicate upon objections raised in respect of
settlement/adjustment/compromise/satisfaction of claims - Proper mode of disposal of such objections - Held, where
case falls under Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II i.e. defendant satisfies plaintiff in respect of whole or part of subject-matter of suit, such
satisfaction is not required to be in writing and signed by parties for court to pass decree - While Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. I which
refers to lawful agreement or compromise arrived at by parties out of court, requires such compromise to be in writing
and signed, said requirement of writing and signature by parties is not necessary when Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II applies - In
instant case, where respondent-plaintiffs submitted pursis (information memorandum) before court as to satisfaction of
their claim by appellant-defendant stating that they had unconditionally given up all claims raised in suit and settled
issues with appellant-defendant, held, case fell under Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II and hence it was sufficient for court to pass
decree in terms of said pursis - Further, court is empowered to decide objections, if any, without giving any further
adjournment - Suit filed (by Respondents-Plaintiffs 1-5) for declaration of sale deeds executed by R-6 in favour of
appellant-defendant as illegal and for injunction against appellant from dealing with suit lands - Respondent-Plaintiff 1 as
power-of-attorney holder for himself and on behalf of the four other plaintiffs compromised suit, after receiving certain
amounts acknowledging that appellant-defendant is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of suit
properties, and executed various documents with appellant and agreed to co-operate in obtaining appropriate orders in
pending suit - Except P-3/1 and P-3/2 (heirs of P-3), remaining respondent-plaintiffs presented a pursis before trial court
stating that they had unconditionally given up all claims raised in suit and settled issues with appellant-defendant - Trial
court accepted said pursis and disposed of suit in terms of pursis rejecting objections of P-3/1 and P-3/2 on ground that
they had cancelled power of attorney after deeds of confirmation were executed - Contending that suit was withdrawn
without consent of P-5/1 to P-5/4 (heirs of P-5) and no documents were executed in favour of appellant, P-3/1 and P-3/2,
heirs of P-4 and P-5 challenged said orders of trial court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution - High Court quashed
impugned orders of trial court and remanded matter to trial court for consideration of matter afresh - Tenability - Held,
pursis submitted by respondent-plaintiffs falls under Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II since defendant (appellant herein) satisfied plaintiffs
as to subject-matter of suit - Objections raised by P-3/1 and P-3/2 were dealt with by trial court as per Or. 23 R. 3 and it
rejected the same by giving cogent reasons - Heirs of P-4 having not taken steps to implead themselves in pending suit
till same was disposed of, suit stood abated qua P-4 - Further, no steps had been taken to set aside said abatement as
well - Also, P-4 during his lifetime executed various documents acknowledging amounts paid by appellant while heirs of
P-3, though objected to pursis, later settled disputes and adopted contentions of appellant - P-5/1 to P-5/4, held,
acquiesced to order of trial court since they had not objected to execution of various deeds and documents and ratified
all actions taken by P-1, as power-of-attorney holder, including pursis presented before trial court - Hence, held, High
Court erred in setting aside orders of trial court - Orders of trial court restored, (2013) 4 SCC 404-A
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 23 R. 1 - Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim - Held, it covers two types of cases: (i) withdrawal of
suit or part of claim with permission of court to bring in fresh suit on same subject-matter, and (ii) withdrawal of suit
without permission of court, (2013) 4 SCC 404-B
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 23 R. 3 proviso - Adjustment of suit by agreement/compromise/adjustment/settlement/satisfa ction of claims -
Dispute/Objections as to - Power of court to adjudicate upon objections raised in respect of
settlement/compromise/satisfaction of claims - Proper mode of disposal - Grant of adjournment(s) to decide objections -
Permissibility - Held, court shall not grant undue adjournment for deciding such objections unless it thinks it fit to grant
such adjournment by recording reasons, (2013) 4 SCC 404-C
Ss. 151 and 10 - Inherent powers of court - Consolidation of suits - Scope explained - Held, there is no specific
provision in CPC for consolidation of suits - Such power has to be exercised only under S. 151,
Or. 23 R. 3 and Ss. 24 & 151 - Transfer of suits from one court to another to be tried together, and consolidation of suits
- Effect on compromise or adjustment - Held, transfer or consolidation of suits does not take away right of parties to
invoke Or. 23 R. 3 - Suits always retain their independent identity and even after an order of consolidation, court is not
powerless to dispose of any suit independently once ingredients of Or. 23 R. 3 are satisfied, (2013) 4 SCC 404-E
Print Page
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. I or Pt. II or Or. 23 R. 1 - Applicability of - Determination of - Requirement of in writing and signed by
parties" in Or. 23 R. 3 - When applicable - Two parts of Or. 23 R. 3, differentiated: (1) Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. I: When there is a
lawful agreement/compromise in writing, or (2) Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II: When there is satisfaction of plaintiff by defendant
wholly or partly in respect of subject-matter of suit - Power of court to adjudicate upon objections raised in respect of
settlement/adjustment/compromise/satisfaction of claims - Proper mode of disposal of such objections - Held, where
case falls under Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II i.e. defendant satisfies plaintiff in respect of whole or part of subject-matter of suit, such
satisfaction is not required to be in writing and signed by parties for court to pass decree - While Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. I which
refers to lawful agreement or compromise arrived at by parties out of court, requires such compromise to be in writing
and signed, said requirement of writing and signature by parties is not necessary when Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II applies - In
instant case, where respondent-plaintiffs submitted pursis (information memorandum) before court as to satisfaction of
their claim by appellant-defendant stating that they had unconditionally given up all claims raised in suit and settled
issues with appellant-defendant, held, case fell under Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II and hence it was sufficient for court to pass
decree in terms of said pursis - Further, court is empowered to decide objections, if any, without giving any further
adjournment - Suit filed (by Respondents-Plaintiffs 1-5) for declaration of sale deeds executed by R-6 in favour of
appellant-defendant as illegal and for injunction against appellant from dealing with suit lands - Respondent-Plaintiff 1 as
power-of-attorney holder for himself and on behalf of the four other plaintiffs compromised suit, after receiving certain
amounts acknowledging that appellant-defendant is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of suit
properties, and executed various documents with appellant and agreed to co-operate in obtaining appropriate orders in
pending suit - Except P-3/1 and P-3/2 (heirs of P-3), remaining respondent-plaintiffs presented a pursis before trial court
stating that they had unconditionally given up all claims raised in suit and settled issues with appellant-defendant - Trial
court accepted said pursis and disposed of suit in terms of pursis rejecting objections of P-3/1 and P-3/2 on ground that
they had cancelled power of attorney after deeds of confirmation were executed - Contending that suit was withdrawn
without consent of P-5/1 to P-5/4 (heirs of P-5) and no documents were executed in favour of appellant, P-3/1 and P-3/2,
heirs of P-4 and P-5 challenged said orders of trial court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution - High Court quashed
impugned orders of trial court and remanded matter to trial court for consideration of matter afresh - Tenability - Held,
pursis submitted by respondent-plaintiffs falls under Or. 23 R. 3 Pt. II since defendant (appellant herein) satisfied plaintiffs
as to subject-matter of suit - Objections raised by P-3/1 and P-3/2 were dealt with by trial court as per Or. 23 R. 3 and it
rejected the same by giving cogent reasons - Heirs of P-4 having not taken steps to implead themselves in pending suit
till same was disposed of, suit stood abated qua P-4 - Further, no steps had been taken to set aside said abatement as
well - Also, P-4 during his lifetime executed various documents acknowledging amounts paid by appellant while heirs of
P-3, though objected to pursis, later settled disputes and adopted contentions of appellant - P-5/1 to P-5/4, held,
acquiesced to order of trial court since they had not objected to execution of various deeds and documents and ratified
all actions taken by P-1, as power-of-attorney holder, including pursis presented before trial court - Hence, held, High
Court erred in setting aside orders of trial court - Orders of trial court restored, (2013) 4 SCC 404-A
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 23 R. 1 - Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim - Held, it covers two types of cases: (i) withdrawal of
suit or part of claim with permission of court to bring in fresh suit on same subject-matter, and (ii) withdrawal of suit
without permission of court, (2013) 4 SCC 404-B
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 23 R. 3 proviso - Adjustment of suit by agreement/compromise/adjustment/settlement/satisfa ction of claims -
Dispute/Objections as to - Power of court to adjudicate upon objections raised in respect of
settlement/compromise/satisfaction of claims - Proper mode of disposal - Grant of adjournment(s) to decide objections -
Permissibility - Held, court shall not grant undue adjournment for deciding such objections unless it thinks it fit to grant
such adjournment by recording reasons, (2013) 4 SCC 404-C
Ss. 151 and 10 - Inherent powers of court - Consolidation of suits - Scope explained - Held, there is no specific
provision in CPC for consolidation of suits - Such power has to be exercised only under S. 151,
Or. 23 R. 3 and Ss. 24 & 151 - Transfer of suits from one court to another to be tried together, and consolidation of suits
- Effect on compromise or adjustment - Held, transfer or consolidation of suits does not take away right of parties to
invoke Or. 23 R. 3 - Suits always retain their independent identity and even after an order of consolidation, court is not
powerless to dispose of any suit independently once ingredients of Or. 23 R. 3 are satisfied, (2013) 4 SCC 404-E
No comments:
Post a Comment